The Economist: “In 1904 a young American named Elizabeth Magie received a patent for a board game in which players used tokens to move around a four-sided board buying properties, avoiding taxes and jail, and collecting $100 every time they passed the board’s starting-point. Three decades later Charles Darrow, a struggling salesman in Pennsylvania, patented a tweaked version of the game as “Monopoly”. Now owned by Hasbro, a big toymaker, it has become one of the world’s most popular board games, available in dozens of languages and innumerable variations.
Magie was a devotee of Henry George, an economist who believed in common ownership of land; her game was designed to be a “practical demonstration of the present system of land-grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences.” And so it has become, though players snatch properties more in zeal than sadness. In “Monopoly” as in life, it is better to be rich than poor, children gleefully bankrupt their parents and nobody uses a flat iron any more.
Board-game makers have had to find their footing in a digital age. Hasbro’s game-and-puzzle sales fell by 4% in 2010—the year the iPad came to market—and 10% in 2011. Since then, however, its game-and-puzzle sales have rebounded, rising by 2% in 2012 and 10% in 2013. Stephanie Wissink, a youth-market analyst with Piper Jaffray, an investment bank, says that Hasbro has learned to become “co-creative…They’re infusing more social-generated content into their marketing and product development.”
Some of that content comes from Facebook. Last year, “Monopoly” fans voted on Hasbro’s Facebook page to jettison the poor old flat iron in favour of a new cat token. “Scrabble” players are voting on which word to add to the new dictionary (at press time, 16 remain, including “booyah”, “adorbs” and “cosplay”). “Monopoly” fans, meanwhile, are voting on which of ten house rules—among them collecting $400 rather than $200 for landing on “Go”, requiring players to make a full circuit of the board before buying property and “Mom always gets out of jail free. Always. No questions asked”—to make official…”
Facebook’s Connectivity Lab will develop advanced technology to provide internet across the world
Signe Brewster and Lauren Hockenson at GigaOm: “The Internet.org initiative will rely on a new team at Facebook called the Connectivity Lab, based at the company’s Menlo Park campus, to develop technology on the ground, in the air and in space, CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Thursday. The team will develop technology like drones and satellites to expand access to the internet across the world.
“The team’s approach is based on the principle that different sized communities need different solutions and they are already working on new delivery platforms—including planes and satellites—to provide connectivity for communities with different population densities,” a post on Internet.org says.
Internet.org, which is backed by companies like Facebook, Samsung and Qualcomm, wants to provide internet to the two thirds of the world that remains disconnected due to cost, lack of infrastructure or remoteness. While many companies are developing business models and partnerships in areas that lack internet, the Connectivity Lab will focus on sustainable technology that will transmit the signals. Facebook envisions using drones that could fly for months to connect suburban areas, while more rural areas would rely on satellites. Both would use infrared lasers to blanket whole areas with connectivity.
Members of the Connectivity Lab have backgrounds at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA’s Ames Research Center and the National Optical Astronomy Observatory. Facebook also confirmed today that it acquired five employees from Ascenta, a U.K.-based company that worked on the Zephyr–a solar-powered drone capable of flying for two weeks straight.
The lab’s work will build on work the company has already done in the Philippines and Paraguay, Zuckerberg said in a Facebook post. And, like the company’s Open Compute project, there is a possibility that the lab will seek partnerships with outside countries once the bulk of the technology has been developed.”
Visualizing Health IT: A holistic overview
Andy Oram in O’Reilly Data: “There is no dearth of health reformers offering their visions for patient engagement, information exchange, better public health, and disruptive change to health industries. But they often accept too freely the promise of technology, without grasping how difficult the technical implementations of their reforms would be. Furthermore, no document I have found pulls together the various trends in technology and explores their interrelationships.
I have tried to fill this gap with a recently released report: The Information Technology Fix for Health: Barriers and Pathways to the Use of Information Technology for Better Health Care. This posting describes some of the issues it covers.
Take a basic example: fitness devices. Lots of health reformers would love to see these pulled into treatment plans to help people overcome hypertension and other serious conditions. It’s hard to understand the factors that make doctors reluctant to do so–blind conservatism is not the problem, but actual technical factors. To become part of treatment plans, the accuracy of devices would have to be validated, they would need to produce data in formats and units that are universally recognized, and electronic records would have to be undergo major upgrades to store and process the data.
Another example is patient engagement, which doctors and hospitals are furiously pursuing. Not only are patients becoming choosier and rating their institutions publicly in Yelp-like fashion, but the clinicians have come to realize that engaged patients are more likely to participate in developing effective treatment plans, not to mention following through on them.
Engaging patients to improve their own outcomes directly affects the institutions’ bottom lines as insurers and the government move from paying for each procedure to pay-per-value (a fixed sum for handling a group of patients that share a health condition). But what data do we need to make pay-per-value fair and accurate? How do we get that data from one place to another, and–much more difficult–out of one ungainly proprietary format and possibly into others? The answer emerging among activists to these questions is: leave the data under the control of the patients, and let them share it as they find appropriate.
Collaboration may be touted even more than patient engagement as the way to better health. And who wouldn’t want his cardiologist to be consulting with his oncologist, nutritionist, and physical therapist? It doesn’t happen as much as it should, and while picking up the phone may be critical sometimes to making the right decisions, electronic media can also be of crucial value. Once again, we have to overcome technical barriers.
The The Information Technology Fix for Health report divides these issues into four umbrella categories:
- Devices, sensors, and patient monitoring
- Using data: records, public data sets, and research
- Coordinated care: teams and telehealth
- Patient empowerment
Underlying all these as a kind of vast subterranean network of interconnected roots are electronic health records (EHRs). These must function well in order for devices to send output to the interested observers, researchers to collect data, and teams to coordinate care. The article delves into the messy and often ugly area of formats and information exchange, along with issues of privacy. I extol once again the virtue of patient control over records and suggest how we could overcome all barriers to make that happen.”
Public interest labs to test open governance solutions
Kathleen Hickey in GCN: “The Governance Lab at New York University (GovLab) and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network have formed a new network, Open Governance, to study how to enhance collaboration and decision-making in the public interest.
The MacArthur Foundation provided a three-year grant of $5 million for the project; Google’s philanthropic arm, Google.org, also contributed. Google.org’s technology will be used to develop platforms to solve problems more openly and to run agile, real-world experiments with governments and NGOs to discover ways to enhance decision-making in the public interest, according to the GovLab announcement.
Network members include 12 experts in computer science, political science, policy informatics, social psychology and philosophy, law, and communications. This group is supported by an advisory network of academics, technologists, and current and former government officials. The network will assess existing government programs and experiment with ways to improve decision-making at the local, national and international government levels.
The Network’s efforts focus on three areas that members say have the potential to make governance more effective and legitimate: getting expertise in, pushing data out and distributing responsibility.
Through smarter governance, they say, institutions can seek input from lay and expert citizens via expert networking, crowdsourcing or challenges. With open data governance, institutions can publish machine-readable data so that citizens can easily analyze and use this information to detect and solve problems. And by shared governance, institutions can help citizens develop solutions through participatory budgeting, peer production or digital commons.
“Recognizing that we cannot solve today’s challenges with yesterday’s tools, this interdisciplinary group will bring fresh thinking to questions about how our governing institutions operate and how they can develop better ways to help address seemingly intractable social problems for the common good,” said MacArthur Foundation President Robert Gallucci.
GovLab’s mission is to study and launch “experimental, technology-enabled solutions that advance a collaborative, networked approach to re-invent existing institutions and processes of governance to improve people’s lives.” Earlier this year GovLab released a preview of its Open Data 500 study of 500 companies using open government data as a key business resource.”
Open Data: What Is It and Why Should You Care?
Jason Shueh at Government Technology: “Though the debate about open data in government is an evolving one, it is indisputably here to stay — it can be heard in both houses of Congress, in state legislatures, and in city halls around the nation.
Already, 39 states and 46 localities provide data sets to data.gov, the federal government’s online open data repository. And 30 jurisdictions, including the federal government, have taken the additional step of institutionalizing their practices in formal open data policies.
Though the term “open data” is spoken of frequently — and has been since President Obama took office in 2009 — what it is and why it’s important isn’t always clear. That’s understandable, perhaps, given that open data lacks a unified definition.
“People tend to conflate it with big data,” said Emily Shaw, the national policy manager at the Sunlight Foundation, “and I think it’s useful to think about how it’s different from big data in the sense that open data is the idea that public information should be accessible to the public online.”
Shaw said the foundation, a Washington, D.C., non-profit advocacy group promoting open and transparent government, believes the term open data can be applied to a variety of information created or collected by public entities. Among the benefits of open data are improved measurement of policies, better government efficiency, deeper analytical insights, greater citizen participation, and a boost to local companies by way of products and services that use government data (think civic apps and software programs).
“The way I personally think of open data,” Shaw said, “is that it is a manifestation of the idea of open government.”
What Makes Data Open
For governments hoping to adopt open data in policy and in practice, simply making data available to the public isn’t enough to make that data useful. Open data, though straightforward in principle, requires a specific approach based on the agency or organization releasing it, the kind of data being released and, perhaps most importantly, its targeted audience.
According to the foundation’s California Open Data Handbook, published in collaboration with Stewards of Change Institute, a national group supporting innovation in human services, data must first be both “technically open” and “legally open.” The guide defines the terms in this way:
Technically open: [data] available in a machine-readable standard format, which means it can be retrieved and meaningfully processed by a computer application
Legally open: [data] explicitly licensed in a way that permits commercial and non-commercial use and re-use without restrictions.
Technically open means that data is easily accessible to its intended audience. If the intended users are developers and programmers, Shaw said, the data should be presented within an application programming interface (API); if it’s intended for researchers in academia, data might be structured in a bulk download; and if it’s aimed at the average citizen, data should be available without requiring software purchases.
….
4 Steps to Open Data
Creating open data isn’t without its complexities. There are many tasks that need to happen before an open data project ever begins. A full endorsement from leadership is paramount. Adding the project into the work flow is another. And allaying fears and misunderstandings is expected with any government project.
After the basic table stakes are placed, the handbook prescribes four steps: choosing a set of data, attaching an open license, making it available through a proper format and ensuring the data is discoverable.
1. Choose a Data Set
Choosing a data set can appear daunting, but it doesn’t have to be. Shaw said ample resources are available from the foundation and others on how to get started with this — see our list of open data resources for more information. In the case of selecting a data set, or sets, she referred to the foundation’s recently updated guidelines that urge identifying data sets based on goals and the demand from citizen feedback.
2. Attach an Open License
Open licenses dispel ambiguity and encourage use. However, they need to be proactive, and this means users should not be forced to request the information in order to use it — a common symptom of data accessed through the Freedom of Information Act. Tips for reference can be found at Opendefinition.org, a site that has a list of examples and links to open licenses that meet the definition of open use.
3. Format the Data to Your Audience
As previously stated, Shaw recommends tailoring the format of data to the audience, with the ideal being that data is packaged in formats that can be digested by all users: developers, civic hackers, department staff, researchers and citizens. This could mean it’s put into APIs, spreadsheet docs, text and zip files, FTP servers and torrent networking systems (a way to download files from different sources). The file type and the system for download all depends on the audience.
“Part of learning about what formats government should offer data in is to engage with the prospective users,” Shaw said.
4. Make it Discoverable
If open data is strewn across multiple download links and wedged into various nooks and crannies of a website, it probably won’t be found. Shaw recommends a centralized hub that acts as a one-stop shop for all open data downloads. In many jurisdictions, these Web pages and websites have been called “portals;” they are the online repositories for a jurisdiction’s open data publishing.
“It is important for thinking about how people can become aware of what their governments hold. If the government doesn’t make it easy for people to know what kinds of data is publicly available on the website, it doesn’t matter what format it’s in,” Shaw said. She pointed to public participation — a recurring theme in open data development — to incorporate into the process to improve accessibility.
Examples of portals, can be found in numerous cities across the U.S., such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Sacramento, Calif.
Visit page 2 of our story for open data resources, and page 3 for open data file formats.
Browser extension automates citations of online material
Springwise: “Plagiarism is a major concern for colleges today, meaning when it comes to writing a thesis or essay, college students can often spend an inordinate amount of time ensuring their bibliographies are up to scratch, to the detriment of the quality of the actual writing. In the past, services such as ReadCube have made it easier to annotate and search online articles, and now Citelighter automatically generates a citation for any web resource, along with a number of tools to help students organize their research.
The service is a toolbar that sits at the top of the user’s browser while they search for material for their paper. When they’ve found a fact or quote that’s useful, users simply highlight the text and click the Capture button, which saves the clipping to the project they’re working on. Citelight automatically captures the bibliographic information necessary to create a citation that reaches academic standards, and users can also add their own comments for when they come to use the quote in their essay. Citations can be re-ordered within each project to enable students to plot out a rough version of their paper before sitting down to write…”
Infomediary Business Models for Connecting Open Data Providers and Users
Paper by Marijn Janssen and Anneke Zuiderwijk in Social Science Computer Review: “Many public organizations are opening their data to the general public and embracing social media in order to stimulate innovation. These developments have resulted in the rise of new, infomediary business models, positioned between open data providers and users. Yet the variation among types of infomediary business models is little understood. The aim of this article is to contribute to the understanding of the diversity of existing infomediary business models that are driven by open data and social media. Cases presenting different modes of open data utilization in the Netherlands are investigated and compared. Six types of business models are identified: single-purpose apps, interactive apps, information aggregators, comparison models, open data repositories, and service platforms. The investigated cases differ in their levels of access to raw data and in how much they stimulate dialogue between different stakeholders involved in open data publication and use. Apps often are easy to use and provide predefined views on data, whereas service platforms provide comprehensive functionality but are more difficult to use. In the various business models, social media is sometimes used for rating and discussion purposes, but it is rarely used for stimulating dialogue or as input to policy making. Hybrid business models were identified in which both public and private organizations contribute to value creation. Distinguishing between different types of open data users was found to be critical in explaining different business models.”
Ten Innovations to Compete for Global Innovation Award
Making All Voices Count: “The Global Innovation Competition was launched at the Open Government Partnership Summit in November, 2013 and set out to scout the globe for fresh ideas to enhance government accountability and boost citizen engagement. The call was worldwide and in response, nearly 200 innovative ideas were submitted. After a process of public voting and peer review, these have been reduced to ten.
Below, we highlight the innovations that will now compete for a prize of £65,000 plus six months mentorship at the Global Innovation Week March 31 – April 4, 2014 in Kenya.
The first seven emerged from a process of peer review and the following three were selected by the Global Innovation Jury.
An SMS gateway, connected to local hospitals and the web, to channel citizens’ requests for pregnancy services. At risk women, in need of information such as hospital locations and general advice, will receive relevant and targeted updates utilising both an SMS and a GIS-based system. The aim is to reduce maternal mortality by targeting at risk women in poorer communities in Indonesia.
“One of the causes of high maternal mortality rate in Indonesia is late response in childbirth treatment and lack of pregnancy care information.”
This project, led by a civil servant, aims to engage citizens in Pakistan in service delivery governance. The project aims to enable and motivate citizens to collect, analyze and disseminate service delivery performance data in order to drive performance and help effective decision making.
“BSDU will serve as a model of better management aided by the citizens, for the citizens.”
A Geographic Information System that gives Indonesian citizens access to information regarding government funded projects. The idea is to enable and motivate citizens to compare a project’s information with its real-world implementation and to provide feedback on this. The ultimate aim is to fight corruption in the public sector by making it easier for citizens to monitor, and provide feedback on, government-funded projects.
“On-the-map information about government-funded projects, where citizens are able to submit their opinions, should became a global standard in budget transparency!”
A digital payment system in South Africa that rewards citizens who participate in activities such as waste separation and community gardening. Citizens are able to ‘spend’ rewards on airtime, pre-paid electricity and groceries. By rewarding social volunteers this project aims to boost citizen engagement, build trust and establish the link between government and citizen actors.
“GEM offers a direct channel for communication and rewards between governments and citizens.”
An app created by a team of software developers to provide Ghanaian citizens with information about the oil and gas industry, with the aim of raising awareness of the revenue generated and to spark debate about how this could be used to improve national development.
“The idea is to bring citizens, the oil and gas companies and the government all onto one platform.”
Ghana Petrol Watch seeks to deliver basic facts and figures associated with oil and gas exploration to the average Ghanaian. The solution employs mobile technology to deliver this information. The audience can voice their concerns as comments on the issue via replies to the SMS. These would then be published on the web portal for further exposure and publicity.
“The information on the petroleum industry is publicly available, but not readily accessible and often does not reach the grassroots community in an easily comprehensible manner.”
A common platform to be implemented in Khulna City, Bangladesh, where citizens and elected officials will interact on budget, expenditure and information.
“The concept of citizen engagement for the fulfillment of pre-election commitment is an innovation in establishing governance.”
The aim of this project is an increase in child engagement in governmental budgeting and policy formulation in Mwanza City, Tanzania. This project was selected as a wildcard by the Global Innovation Jury.
“In many projects I have seen, children are always the perceived beneficiaries, rarely do you see innovations where children are active participants in achieving a goal in their society. It was great to see children as active contributors to their own discourse.” – Jury Member, Shikoh Gitau.
A ‘watchdog’ newsletter in Kenya focusing on monitoring the actions of officials with the aim of educating, empowering and motivating citizens to hold their leaders to account. This project was selected as a wildcard by the Global Innovation Jury.
“We endeavor to bridge the information gap in northern Kenya by giving voice to the voiceless and also highlighting their challenges. The aim is an increase in the educational level of the people through information.”
Citizen Desk is an open-source tool that combines the ability of citizens to share eyewitness reports with the public need for verified information in real time. Citizen Desk lets citizen journalists file reports via SMS or social media, with no need for technical training. This project was selected as a wildcard by the Global Innovation Jury.
“It has become evident for some time now that good technical innovation must rest on a strong bedrock of social and political activity, on the ground, deeply in touch with local conditions, and sometimes in the face of power and privilege.” – Jury Member Bright Simons.”
Big data: are we making a big mistake?
Tim Harford in the Financial Times: “Cheerleaders for big data have made four exciting claims, each one reflected in the success of Google Flu Trends: that data analysis produces uncannily accurate results; that every single data point can be captured, making old statistical sampling techniques obsolete; that it is passé to fret about what causes what, because statistical correlation tells us what we need to know; and that scientific or statistical models aren’t needed because, to quote “The End of Theory”, a provocative essay published in Wired in 2008, “with enough data, the numbers speak for themselves”. Unfortunately, these four articles of faith are at best optimistic oversimplifications. At worst, according to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge university, they can be “complete bollocks. Absolute nonsense.”…
But big data do not solve the problem that has obsessed statisticians and scientists for centuries: the problem of insight, of inferring what is going on, and figuring out how we might intervene to change a system for the better.
“We have a new resource here,” says Professor David Hand of Imperial College London. “But nobody wants ‘data’. What they want are the answers.”
To use big data to produce such answers will require large strides in statistical methods.
“It’s the wild west right now,” says Patrick Wolfe of UCL. “People who are clever and driven will twist and turn and use every tool to get sense out of these data sets, and that’s cool. But we’re flying a little bit blind at the moment.”
Statisticians are scrambling to develop new methods to seize the opportunity of big data. Such new methods are essential but they will work by building on the old statistical lessons, not by ignoring them.
Recall big data’s four articles of faith. Uncanny accuracy is easy to overrate if we simply ignore false positives, as with Target’s pregnancy predictor. The claim that causation has been “knocked off its pedestal” is fine if we are making predictions in a stable environment but not if the world is changing (as with Flu Trends) or if we ourselves hope to change it. The promise that “N = All”, and therefore that sampling bias does not matter, is simply not true in most cases that count. As for the idea that “with enough data, the numbers speak for themselves” – that seems hopelessly naive in data sets where spurious patterns vastly outnumber genuine discoveries.
“Big data” has arrived, but big insights have not. The challenge now is to solve new problems and gain new answers – without making the same old statistical mistakes on a grander scale than ever.”
The GovLab Index: Privacy and Security
Please find below the latest installment in The GovLab Index series, inspired by the Harper’s Index. “The GovLab Index: Privacy and Security” examines the attitudes and concerns of American citizens regarding online privacy. Previous installments include Designing for Behavior Change, The Networked Public, Measuring Impact with Evidence, Open Data, The Data Universe, Participation and Civic Engagement and Trust in Institutions.
Globally
- Percentage of people who feel the Internet is eroding their personal privacy: 56%
- Internet users who feel comfortable sharing personal data with an app: 37%
- Number of users who consider it important to know when an app is gathering information about them: 70%
- How many people in the online world use privacy tools to disguise their identity or location: 28%, or 415 million people
- Country with the highest penetration of general anonymity tools among Internet users: Indonesia, where 42% of users surveyed use proxy servers
- Percentage of China’s online population that disguises their online location to bypass governmental filters: 34%
In the United States
Over the Years
- In 1996, percentage of the American public who were categorized as having “high privacy concerns”: 25%
- Those with “Medium privacy concerns”: 59%
- Those who were unconcerned with privacy: 16%
- In 1998, number of computer users concerned about threats to personal privacy: 87%
- In 2001, those who reported “medium to high” privacy concerns: 88%
- Individuals who are unconcerned about privacy: 18% in 1990, down to 10% in 2004
- How many online American adults are more concerned about their privacy in 2014 than they were a year ago, indicating rising privacy concerns: 64%
- Number of respondents in 2012 who believe they have control over their personal information: 35%, downward trend for 7 years
- How many respondents in 2012 continue to perceive privacy and the protection of their personal information as very important or important to the overall trust equation: 78%, upward trend for seven years
- How many consumers in 2013 trust that their bank is committed to ensuring the privacy of their personal information is protected: 35%, down from 48% in 2004
Privacy Concerns and Beliefs
- How many Internet users worry about their privacy online: 92%
- Those who report that their level of concern has increased from 2013 to 2014: 7 in 10
- How many are at least sometimes worried when shopping online: 93%, up from 89% in 2012
- Those who have some concerns when banking online: 90%, up from 86% in 2012
- Number of Internet users who are worried about the amount of personal information about them online: 50%, up from 33% in 2009
- Those who report that their photograph is available online: 66%
- Their birthdate: 50%
- Home address: 30%
- Cell number: 24%
- A video: 21%
- Political affiliation: 20%
- Those who report that their photograph is available online: 66%
- Consumers who are concerned about companies tracking their activities: 58%
- Those who are concerned about the government tracking their activities: 38%
- How many users surveyed felt that the National Security Association (NSA) overstepped its bounds in light of recent NSA revelations: 44%
- Respondents who are comfortable with advertisers using their web browsing history to tailor advertisements as long as it is not tied to any other personally identifiable information: 36%, up from 29% in 2012
- Percentage of voters who do not want political campaigns to tailor their advertisements based on their interests: 86%
- Percentage of respondents who do not want news tailored to their interests: 56%
- Percentage of users who are worried about their information will be stolen by hackers: 75%
- Those who are worried about companies tracking their browsing history for targeted advertising: 54%
- How many consumers say they do not trust businesses with their personal information online: 54%
- Top 3 most trusted companies for privacy identified by consumers from across 25 different industries in 2012: American Express, Hewlett Packard and Amazon
- Most trusted industries for privacy: Healthcare, Consumer Products and Banking
- Least trusted industries for privacy: Internet and Social Media, Non-Profits and Toys
- Respondents who admit to sharing their personal information with companies they did not trust in 2012 for reasons such as convenience when making a purchase: 63%
- Percentage of users who say they prefer free online services supported by targeted ads: 61%
- Those who prefer paid online services without targeted ads: 33%
- How many Internet users believe that it is not possible to be completely anonymous online: 59%
- Those who believe complete online anonymity is still possible: 37%
- Those who say people should have the ability to use the Internet anonymously: 59%
- Percentage of Internet users who believe that current laws are not good enough in protecting people’s privacy online: 68%
- Those who believe current laws provide reasonable protection: 24%
FULL LIST at http://thegovlab.org/the-govlab-index-privacy-and-trust/